Cool. Who's going to moderate this? I would, but (a) it wouldn't be fair to Fran; (b) my broadband connection has been a bit flaky lately; and (c) I recently bought Mass Effect so I'm a bit... distracted at the moment.

The truth is the most important thing that there is, yet it is the least popular thing on Earth. And, obviously, this discrepancy is not by chance, but rather, by design-the truth is being actively suppressed.In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act George Orwel

Has every group of scholars in the history of this planet that have decided to agree on a set of "facts" always been right 100% of the time, and in the history of this planet, have groups of scholars agreeing NEVER been proven to be wrong, ever?

Are groups of scholars immune to being disagreed and proven wrong with by people who aren't scholars? Does the title of "Scholar" make them immune to criticism?

That's the problem you have with your group of scholars, you assume they are absolutely right, and you tell us we can't disagree with them because we aren't scholars. Sorry, but you and they don't get a pass on that. I can disagree with their assertions if I want to, after applying critical thinking to what they assert, and if it shows them to be incorrect, then that's too bad for the scholars. It's very possible for groups of scholars to be incorrect Fran, and if you don't think so, then you are delusional about more than just your religion.

But remember this, you can't ask of me something that you are not going to apply to yourself. For ANY NATURAL explanation you put forth, then you must support it WITH FACTS.. and not wishful thinking. At the very least, bring to the table as much as I do... which is written material written around the same time period as the written material I use. In fact, the earlier the better.

Fran,

We've told you a million times now it seems like -

WRITTEN MATERIAL CAN NEVER BE EVIDENCE OR LEAD TO CONCLUSIONS THAT SUPERNATURAL RESURRECTIONS CAN BE A SOLUTION TO YOUR SCENARIO

Fran, prove that a god exists and can resurrect rotting corpses, then and only then can you use it as an explanation.

You've been told this over and over and over and over ... and you can't or won't understand it to this day. You always put the cart (a resurrection) before the horse (proving a god exists that can do such things). You have it

TOTALLY BACKWARDS

It won't work Fran, and I hope kcrady sets you straight on this once and for all.

Fran should, it seems, have an easier job against me, surely? We're both arguing "extra-normal" solutions, AND I'm giving him a complete "bye" that:Jesus really and completely died on the cross.That his body was placed in a tomb, which was later found empty.That his disciples, and others, became completely convinced that Jesus had returned from the dead as a result of their experiences post-crucifiction with a being claiming to be Jesus.

I'd just like to report, after reading a bit further, that it can be seen now that Fran has utterly BULLDOZED OVER the point many of us tried to help him understand--and clearly FAILED to make him understand.

He is now stating OUTRIGHT, as his fact #3: It is a FACT that the disciples saw, communicated with, whatever, jesus after his death. I've noticed Habermas AND WLC do this same thing as it suits them. When pressed, they will admit that the "historical fact" is that the disciples REPORTED seeing jesus after his death...but when no one is looking, they return to the "fact" being the disciples SAW jesus after his death.

It's VERY telling that Fran simply WILL NOT ALLOW THIS DISTINCTION TO EVEN ENTER HIS MIND. In his latest series of posts he acts as if the issue had never been raised, and that the historical fact is that "the disciples saw jesus after his death."

This is why this debate can never proceed: Fran has REFUSED to even ACKNOWLEDGE the points of others. He takes as a last resort that he's simply unable to understand the point. He has done this with Fact #3, and the result is he is now claiming something FAR BEYOND the actual "Fact #3" (for which he can't be blamed too much, because Habermas HIMSELF makes the unwarranted expansion of the fact whenever he can).

It's VERY telling that Fran simply WILL NOT ALLOW THIS DISTINCTION TO EVEN ENTER HIS MIND. In his latest series of posts he acts as if the issue had never been raised, and that the historical fact is that "the disciples saw jesus after his death."

Yep. Welcome to our world. We've been fighting this since way last year.

The fact that Fran regularly makes ~8-page responses rather than concise ones, making progress nigh-impossible, indicates, to me, that he values the existence of the debate more than a resolution to the debate. Keeping the debate going without conclusion is his ultimate goal. It is an exercise in trolling.

It's VERY telling that Fran simply WILL NOT ALLOW THIS DISTINCTION TO EVEN ENTER HIS MIND. In his latest series of posts he acts as if the issue had never been raised, and that the historical fact is that "the disciples saw jesus after his death."

Yep. Welcome to our world. We've been fighting this since way last year.

That's why I've always pushed for "micro debates" that concentrate on very SPECIFIC issues, and that can progress with SHORT posts, and a clear back and forth on sticking points. This debate can't proceed in any kind of realistic manner with the Fact #3 disparity floating through it--yet, we ALL ganged up on him over this issue for PAGES, and simply couldn't break through. It's DEEPLY ENTRENCHED cognitive dissonance that's as strong as iron--which is why, ultimately, it's pointless to have these kinds of debates with believers. Highly FOCUSED debates can work, because these sticking points are hit EASILY, focused on, and either broken through or seen to be intractable--ending the debate. There' so much crap floating in the air over this debate that it's impossible to get anywhere.

Yes Fran, it does, and that's all we need to dismiss the claims of an actual resurrection. That's it. Simple. That's why we don't dismiss claims of ancient wars or leaders or journeys or ships or cities or ... - because WE KNOW THESE THINGS CAN HAPPEN AND ARE POSSIBLE.

A resurrection? The probability of it actually happening is so low as to be near Zero, and you know damn well why. There is NO corroborating evidence of such a thing EVER happening, and NO evidence of the force that enables such an event. NONE - ZERO - NADA.

Case closed dear.

kcrady, I feel sorry that you have to wade through that muck, but I wish you the best of luck.